Moreno wrote:For me 'conspiracy theory' is a neutral term. It does not mean silly or wrong. Otherwise the term is simply ridiculous. I was just pointing out it was a kind of conspiracy theory. Though it did have to do with films and not music.

I was addressing you both...should have made a better attempt to be clear...

No problem. Another reaction I have to the use of the term

Conspiracy theory

as a perjorative is that so many of the people who use the term that way fell for the Bush Administration's conspiracy theory about WOMD in Iraq and on far less evidence than many CTheorists have for their theories. So an actual conspiracy - a CONSPIRACY to manipulate public support for a war (AS IF it had something to do with 9/11 and as if there was a real threat to Americans) by powerful members of the government - used an official conspiracy theory to get the job done.

When governments make up conspiracy theories they never seem to get this label.

And people go on an on speaking about conspiracy theories as if there were no conspiracies.

It's bizarre.

They must think our law books are insane with so many kinds of crimes of conspiracy.

Last edited by Moreno on Sun Jul 31, 2011 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy fact. Sometimes people plan a conspiracy, and then they get caught. Most of the time they are not even trying to hide it because there is really no need to.

If you look at movies like Transformers, and other blatant social conditioning showers of propaganda and you see the entire thing is one symbiotic relationship with the US army, promoting their ideals about as obviously as possible, you don't even need to look at the records to see the US government not only allowed them to use their stuff, but paid them a jesus stack of money to do it.

I'm sure if you were to ask Michael Bay, Stone, or whoever else outright, 'hey, was this designed with the intention to steer the public towards some nationalistic morality?' he would say 'Of course. That's not a conspiracy theory.'

Just like if you ask anyone outside of America 'hey, was 9/11 an inside job?' they would say 'Yeah, of course, it's an age-old geopolitical strategy being put to use yet again. What's so surprising about that?'

If you take out pride a lot of these things become pretty common sense, obviously-a-psychopath-is-going-to-do-that type things. It's only some conspiracy theory that you assert to others is impossible to solve (wtf? lol) when you're too proud to admit that you got fucking fooled.

Old_Gobbo wrote:There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy fact.

Sure, just because something describes a conspiracy does not mean it happened. It's just a very strange term.

It would be like calling who you believe thinks poorly

a Thinker.

Oh, he's just another thinker.

We know there are conspiracies. So the term conspiracy theory HAS TO BE neutral. And yet it is used pejoratively. The fact that people who are taking the position of being the rational ones keep using a term utterly irrationally and do not seem to notice this should be a warning sign.

Sometimes people plan a conspiracy, and then they get caught. Most of the time they are not even trying to hide it because there is really no need to.

If you look at movies like Transformers, and other blatant social conditioning showers of propaganda and you see the entire thing is one symbiotic relationship with the US army, promoting their ideals about as obviously as possible, you don't even need to look at the records to see the US government not only allowed them to use their stuff, but paid them a jesus stack of money to do it.

I'm sure if you were to ask Michael Bay, Stone, or whoever else outright, 'hey, was this designed with the intention to steer the public towards some nationalistic morality?' he would say 'Of course. That's not a conspiracy theory.'

I agree in general, though to me JFK made one skeptical about governement and theories, whereas I absolutely agree with the problem of Bay movies, et al.

Fixed Cross wrote:Democracy only works when a people has a backbone. If the mind and the principles forged from it are looked down upon, and watching videos of people complaining is deemed the highest form of thinking, a society is not worth a representative government. It must be controlled from above, otherwise destruction is certain.

That tyranny guarantees profiteering is obvious, but in a nation of people without standards, everything is preferable to a representational government.

The 'spirit of the people' is no longer a western phenomenon - we are in a state of decay, and the few of us who are able to think realize that this is not our governments doing, but the results of not having to fight for anything. People, like all structural, tension-based entities, are in general not worth much to others if they are not forced to make an effort.

Philosophy has never had anything to do with the present, with the current political misery that is almost always occurring everywhere, but with ideas that may carve out cultures from coming centuries. In a generation of people who have been trained to not think about anything but the bliss of momentary indulgence, such activity is naturally considered useless.

It seems too many think nothing can be done...perhaps that is part of the problem...

Last edited by Abstract on Sun Jul 31, 2011 5:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Old_Gobbo wrote:There is a difference between a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy fact. Sometimes people plan a conspiracy, and then they get caught. Most of the time they are not even trying to hide it because there is really no need to.

I've yet to be familiar with any "facts"...

Old_Gobbo wrote:If you look at movies like Transformers, and other blatant social conditioning showers of propaganda and you see the entire thing is one symbiotic relationship with the US army, promoting their ideals about as obviously as possible, you don't even need to look at the records to see the US government not only allowed them to use their stuff, but paid them a jesus stack of money to do it.

I'm sure if you were to ask Michael Bay, Stone, or whoever else outright, 'hey, was this designed with the intention to steer the public towards some nationalistic morality?' he would say 'Of course. That's not a conspiracy theory.'

Just like if you ask anyone outside of America 'hey, was 9/11 an inside job?' they would say 'Yeah, of course, it's an age-old geopolitical strategy being put to use yet again. What's so surprising about that?'

If you take out pride a lot of these things become pretty common sense, obviously-a-psychopath-is-going-to-do-that type things. It's only some conspiracy theory that you assert to others is impossible to solve (wtf? lol) when you're too proud to admit that you got fucking fooled.

The main problem with conspiracy theories is that the people don't like having an aspect of their government or thing personified...that is to say that people point at a single entity, and it seems ridiculous...Because that actually is...in reality it is a large complex interweaving of the social stratum...it isn't necessarily some group thinking they are actually going to manipulate this or that...These people believe what they are doing is right...They probably don;t even think of it by any means as controlling the public opinions...rather they think they are encouraging support for the military...literally...then when they say that the consipacy theorists says oh that is bull shit ...blah blah blah...and gets upset...in reality people need to point out how it is that such is negative because clearly they really do think like that...

Another problem is when the people get tired of the silly ideas the controlers are having and the things they are doing and instead of realizing they were being really stupid they destroy everybody...

The term itself is a conspiracy of sorts. It's a psychological trigger. When it's used in the media it (tries to) immediately discredit anything the person says. If you watch Bill O'Reilly when he has guests on that are gifted at debate you see how it's a literal race to say (and qualify) certain terms first. For example if you go on O'Reilly and say 'Now Bill, if you call me a nut, or a loon, or [this] you must first take into consideration [that...]' then it changes the psychological dynamic of him using that term. Suddenly it doesn't have that subconscious impact because it's been brought to the conscious.

Last edited by Gobbo on Sun Jul 31, 2011 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

You've not familiar with any facts concerning conspiracies? That's embarrassing to say the least. There are endless facts concerning conspiracies. So at this point many (myself included) would conclude you've simply never looked.

The main problem with conspiracy theories is that the people don't like having an aspect of their government or thing personified...that is to say that people point at a single entity, and it seems ridiculous...Because that actually is...in reality it is a large complex interweaving of the social stratum...it isn't necessarily some group thinking they are actually going to manipulate this or that...These people believe what they are doing is right...They probably don;t even think of it by any means as controlling the public opinions...rather they think they are encouraging support for the military...literally...then when they say that the consipacy theorists says oh that is bull shit ...blah blah blah...and gets upset...in reality people need to point out how it is that such is negative because clearly they really do think like that...

Another problem is when the people get tired of the silly ideas the controlers are having and the things they are doing and instead of realizing they were being really stupid they destroy everybody...

You've not familiar with any facts concerning conspiracies? That's embarrassing to say the least. There are endless facts concerning conspiracies. So at this point many (myself included) would conclude you've simply never looked.

My point is to say that there always remains the possibility that something is wrong...to say something is a fact indicates to so many that it is absolute, wherein the fact itself could be a conspiracy...the idea is that really all we can do is see things as being probable but less than 100% probable...only in hypothetical mathematical situations does anything actually have a certain and perfect 100% probability...in realtiy it is merely a matter of it being highly likely...not a 'fact'...unless by 'fact' you mean something highly likely...in which case i know many many facts...

Old_Gobbo wrote:

The main problem with conspiracy theories is that the people don't like having an aspect of their government or thing personified...that is to say that people point at a single entity, and it seems ridiculous...Because that actually is...in reality it is a large complex interweaving of the social stratum...it isn't necessarily some group thinking they are actually going to manipulate this or that...These people believe what they are doing is right...They probably don;t even think of it by any means as controlling the public opinions...rather they think they are encouraging support for the military...literally...then when they say that the consipacy theorists says oh that is bull shit ...blah blah blah...and gets upset...in reality people need to point out how it is that such is negative because clearly they really do think like that...

Another problem is when the people get tired of the silly ideas the controlers are having and the things they are doing and instead of realizing they were being really stupid they destroy everybody...

Wat.

Is that a i-don't-understand 'what'or a I-don't-agree 'what'or a this-this-is-unintelligible 'what'

I would say that many do not understand what i was attempting to say above is a cause for many other problems...

My point is to say that there always remains the possibility that something is wrong...to say something is a fact indicates to so many that it is absolute, wherein the fact itself could be a conspiracy...the idea is that really all we can do is see things as being probable but less than 100% probable...only in hypothetical mathematical situations does anything actually have a certain and perfect 100% probability...in realtiy it is merely a matter of it being highly likely...not a 'fact'...unless by 'fact' you mean something highly likely...in which case i know many many facts...

You sound like XCZ. If I had a dollar for every time someone offered up that sophomoric argument I would be rich.

It's like if I watched a thief mug you on the street and then you turn around and say 'Well, philosophically we don't know 100% for sure it was him, because truth is unknowable'

When someone says something (seriously) like that in the context of a geopolitical argument you know the discussion is heading south because they are hanging to abstract generalizations in the face of overwhelming evidence that is as accurate as any of the other information sources that same person uses to comprise their (workable) worldview.

Abstract wrote:It seems too many think nothing can be done...perhaps that is part of the problem...

Now that socialisms goals have been attained, the socialist adagium has been reversed.

What Marx did was make the proletarian, the man without power, think that he had history on his side, that he was therefore powerful. He installed a self-affirming morality in him. In a sense he did the same as the American constitution. Both focussed on the inherent power of the individual.

Now that all possible freedoms have been attained, what remains is only the indignation that gave rise to them. This now turns against the things that have led to freedom: awareness of power, respect for history, projection of a victorious warpath. They now become: ignorance of power, contempt of history, projection of armageddon.

'Humanity' seems like a product because it's advertised everywhere but, actually it's the wrapping of another project. The power of the state. An averagely intelligent man buys into the states claim that it represents humanity and so sells his will, to the state which is being revealed as a mask, for a network of powerful families. Such a clan-based power has always been dominant in human history except in nations where truly violent peoples revolutions have formed the law.

I am in the dark as to which families branch out and how, what their unofficial gatherings look like and the exact decisions they make to control the herd and to protect their control. From what I gather though, they are relentlessly ambitious and this fits within the model of the world as will to power, so I have to applaud them for keeping the show going. As they try to keep the masses docile by giving them what they crave: bread and games or consumption products and spectacle, I think sometimes: everybody happy, no?

Well, no not actually, because the corporations could use a little help from the masses, otherwise they don't work. It is in few peoples interest that the entire power structure of the world is reversed, even though it may seem a pleasant scenario to the weariest. In the atomic age we are forced to cooperate, which means to ascend in the ranks, to take responsibility of the machine.

Is this un-idealistic? Sure, being is not an ideal but the opposite. It only works in terms of its own power over itself, and in all other ways it perishes.

The only solution for the unambitious mass is to come to terms with itself, to stop pining for a world completely without rank differences. The word works by virtue of amounts of effort of which reason as we know it can only be a very thin shadow and helas not by anything like normal behavior. It definitely doesn't give rise to "self-evident rights". "Rome" was an impressive illusion, but the belief in the natural existence of moral rights takes the crown. Impressive, therefore I endorse it.

Where are we now? At a place where the weak are dominated or perish and the strong continue as part of the corporation which, absent the perspective of the weak, is perfectly healthy to itself. A healthy creature takes crises as opportunities and gladly incorporates internal revolutions as necessary changes of behavior to adapt to increased power.

Old_Gobbo wrote:You sound like XCZ. If I had a dollar for every time someone offered up that sophomoric argument I would be rich.

It's like if I watched a thief mug you on the street and then you turn around and say 'Well, philosophically we don't know 100% for sure it was him, because truth is unknowable'

That seems rather presumptuous that I would misuse the logic as such... I would not get angry but I would avoid what is not beneficial, even though one does not know 100% they cans still recognize it is most likely, be it that 99% is the best you got that is practically the same as knowing

Old_Gobbo wrote:When someone says something (seriously) like that in the context of a geopolitical argument you know the discussion is heading south because they are hanging to abstract generalizations in the face of overwhelming evidence that is as accurate as any of the other information sources that same person uses to comprise their (workable) worldview.

Rather my point is to point out that it is rather silly to assume something can't be wrong...which is not an assumption i am saying you made but rather one that is commonly made due to the connotations of the wrod "fact"...How often is it that so many say something stupid is scientifically "proven"...Are not stupid things actually scientifically "proven" when we later find studies that show such was not the case...?

Last edited by Abstract on Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Naturally my rejection of morals doesn't reflect on the OP - for his sake I would almost hope the armageddon comes, Joker brings the notion of the End like a poet. But for me, other interests overrule the fun of lament.

Fixed Cross wrote:Naturally my rejection of morals doesn't reflect on the OP - for his sake I would almost hope the armageddon comes, Joker brings the notion of the End like a poet. But for me, other interests overrule the fun of lament.

i think things can be changed...things get to a critical point an people begin to think we have already fallen off the cliff, which only leads more people off the cliff...Try till you can't try. Till death.

'Humanity' seems like a product because it's advertised everywhere but, actually it's the wrapping of another project. The power of the state. An averagely intelligent man buys into the states claim that it represents humanity and so sells his will, to the state which is being revealed as a mask, for a network of powerful families. Such a clan-based power has always been dominant in human history except in nations where truly violent peoples revolutions have formed the law.

I am in the dark as to which families branch out and how, what their unofficial gatherings look like and the exact decisions they make to control the herd and to protect their control. From what I gather though, they are relentlessly ambitious and this fits within the model of the world as will to power, so I have to applaud them for keeping the show going. As they try to keep the masses docile by giving them what they crave: bread and games or consumption products and spectacle, I think sometimes: everybody happy, no?

You can call me resentful, and sure maybe I am, but at least I'm not a social irrelevancy. You freely admit you don't know anything (about how the world works) and then your reasoning as to why that is acceptable is because you're infatuated with those who hold power. Umm... who cares that you applaud them? What does that have to do with anything? Thisisn't some teenage worship the Devil cause it's cool club. It's called being a fully formed, responsible adult in a world full of 50-year-old children.

Inbred psychopaths are actually pretty predictable. The problem isn't really them, it's people like -you- who are proud to be ignorant because somewhere someone is actually taking control. You'll be more resentful - I promise you - than I currrently am when you realize the full extent of that control. They will kill of the cheerleaders and naysayers all the same.

Old_Gobbo wrote:You can call me resentful, and sure maybe I am, but at least I'm not a social irrelevancy. You freely admit you don't know anything (about how the world works) and then your reasoning as to why that is acceptable is because you're infatuated with those who hold power. Umm... who cares that you applaud them? What does that have to do with anything? Thisisn't some teenage worship the Devil cause it's cool club. It's called being a fully formed, responsible adult in a world full of 50-year-old children.

Inbred psychopaths are actually pretty predictable. The problem isn't really them, it's people like -you- who are proud to be ignorant because somewhere someone is actually taking control. You'll be more resentful - I promise you - than I currrently am when you realize the full extent of that control. They will kill of the cheerleaders and naysayers all the same.

Seriousy. What an insanely weird argument.

I am currently enjoying their "controlled environment" a lot more than I would have been enjoying my world in the Middle Ages. As you know, they, (The masons) took us from there to here.

Fixed Cross wrote:I am currently enjoying their "controlled environment" a lot more than I would have been enjoying my world in the Middle Ages. As you know, they, (The masons) took us from there to here.

But that was their creation also. They destroyed communities and a variety of earth based religions, disconnected the mass of people from the land - the commons - that become the property of Lords. They've been in an ongoing struggle to contain yearnings for freedom and community and nowards do it more indirectly through BS, products, distraction, indirect mind control - instead of direct via the Abrahamic religions - wage slavery and so on. Many of the changes have come about due to the restlessness of humans trapped in structures these assholes make. Nowadays they are dehumanizing us in ways it would be very hard for you to compare with what happened then, since you are swimming in the now. We are numbed, diconnected, overloaded, distracted, fed foods that have little to do with what our bodies need and like and are bombarded with chemicals and radiation that numb our minds, give us cancer, but primarily hold us in semi-zombie place. We are frogs in slowly heating up water.

I just looked into the masons and apparently all you ahave to believe in is a supreme being...seems rather funny that such a being could be to that person Satan or something...

The masons are just a network of (obviously socially inept) professionals who like to dick around in robes and shit. The actual malicious people we're talking about here are the inbred psychopaths which exist in this highly secretive network.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Old_Gobbo wrote:You can call me resentful, and sure maybe I am, but at least I'm not a social irrelevancy. You freely admit you don't know anything (about how the world works) and then your reasoning as to why that is acceptable is because you're infatuated with those who hold power. Umm... who cares that you applaud them? What does that have to do with anything? Thisisn't some teenage worship the Devil cause it's cool club. It's called being a fully formed, responsible adult in a world full of 50-year-old children.

Inbred psychopaths are actually pretty predictable. The problem isn't really them, it's people like -you- who are proud to be ignorant because somewhere someone is actually taking control. You'll be more resentful - I promise you - than I currrently am when you realize the full extent of that control. They will kill of the cheerleaders and naysayers all the same.

Seriousy. What an insanely weird argument.

I am currently enjoying their "controlled environment" a lot more than I would have been enjoying my world in the Middle Ages. As you know, they, (The masons) took us from there to here.

I very much doubt the claim that the only reason the world became civilized is because of some dudes running around in red crosses. Let's just posit that as truthful for a moment, though. Given that their belief is they are another (inbred) species, and we are expendable, why wouldn't you want to take this opportunity - global free speech - to make moves to get out from the classification of expendable? It's like being a slave in 1700's America and you find one day the doors are totally open. There is even a bunch of people outside of the gates teaching the spiritual secrets of all of history for free, but you want to stay in the slave yard because, hey, things might suddenly fucking revert back to the medieval ages.

Whether it be fanatical psychopathic death cult nonsense, or just a normal, altruistic person working really hard to achieve something, I think pretty much all of us would agree that hard work is a desirable trait. Hard work is hard, though. Psychologically it's the hardest.

After all the trials and tribulations of the day have taken their toll, who really has the time to turn off the television and, instead of spreading your ass cheeks to the inevitability of someone's else's decree, take action to, in whatever small way, fight back against the darkness? Oh wait a second, a bunch of people have the energy to do that.

It's kind of sad to listen to my elders say 'what do you think you can hope to accomplish?' 'Why learn about any of that stuff? It's a waste of time.' So many people from the generation that got us into this insane mess are the ones telling the ones working to get us out of it to just give up. It's kind of hilarious in a dark way. They threw credit at you and what did you do? You bought car clubs, and ab machines, and watched MASH, and whatever the fuck. Totally clueless. Thank god some of the kids figured out the internet cause it was like 'Oh, wait a second... yep, you can't actually just go through life watching television, hoping to work 40 years at the same job and not have their be repercussions. Shit.'

So here's a tip to the dinosaurs who have this implicit infant-like trust in the government/media, and get abnormally defensive/uncomfortable when someone mentions 9/11, or other topics that seek to break the cocoon that by some miracle hasn't been broken yet: just sit back and watch the show. Seriously, get out of the way. You probably do have the time to do the reading you should have been doing all your life right now - it's not that arduous - but since you feel you can't fit it in between reality shows and figuring out your Ipad and renewed sex life, just leave us alone and let us work. Don't continue pumping energy into 9/11 was muslims, or that's not chemtrails up there, or any of that shit. If you want to be so lazy as to simply trust some authority figure then trust me.

The new standard for work ethic isn't your grandfather's elbow grease 'be a man' variety, it's the 'actually think, and be a human' variety.

Moreno wrote:In no time has it been advisable to follow the instructions of the state or the church. It is what is called in philosophical terms, a dialectic. But in order to perform such identification-counter-identification, in order to fight the war so to speak, one must recognize the other for his intentions, and not project ones own fears on them.

The conspiracy soapbox-prophet, as opposed to a diligent theorist, is presenting his assertions without any evidence, because other people don't believe him in cases where there is evidence either.

I agree that there is massive control apparatus and this apparatus is trying to prevent more population growth, even aiming to reduce it, and I think that they are aiming to create conditions where only the very strong and clever survive. They are trying to speed up evolution. Why would they not be trying that? Because you think it is wrong? Well, why do you think that? Do you have an argument for why you should be indulged to live in the totally unnatural conditions of the absence of challenge?

Abstract wrote:Spend a night in jail, for breathing on a cop, and then one will find it hard to be comfortable with the way things are.

Sorry but I have spent nights in jail for less, and even if I personally very much dislike contact with police, it didn't shock or surprise me, or change my opinion. Power is not your friendly neighbor, ir is power and that presents a constant threat to the one holding it.Do you think that breathing on a Roman centurion would have had a more pleasant outcome?

Abstract wrote:I just looked into the masons and apparently all you ahave to believe in is a supreme being...seems rather funny that such a being could be to that person Satan or something...

If one passes through the first initiation, the paradigm that is presented will be different. The Masonic initiation system is famously ping-ponging the adept from one conviction to it's opposite, until he either nihilistically turns away from conviction and centers on the certainty of self interest or is able to forge some kind of understanding of what he believes.

I very much doubt the claim that the only reason the world became civilized is because of some dudes running around in red crosses.

I also very much doubt that the globe is stratified by a military industrial complex because some dudes are running around with red crosses. I also very much doubt that the invention of banking has to do with the red crosses or the running around that these dudes did... still, there was one organization doing all these things at once. So I don't see your point.

Let's just posit that as truthful for a molment, though. Given that their belief is they are another (inbred) species, and we are expendable, why wouldn't you want to take this opportunity - global free speech - to make moves to get out from the classification of expendable? It's like being a slave in 1700's America and you find one day the doors are totally open. There is even a bunch of people outside of the gates teaching the spiritual secrets of all of history for free, but you want to stay in the slave yard because, hey, things might suddenly fucking revert back to the medieval ages.

Hmmm... and what if this "given" is the result of this free speech?

And what do you mean by "spiritual secrets of all of history"? If you would be so generous to share them, then you would actually be doing us all a favor. But I suppose you enjoy it more - I mean, it is more in line with your work ethic, to go on about how your elders are dinosaurs, and keep the secrets for yourself...?

It would be a discredit to your mind Gobbo, if because I don't share your focus on a doomsday scenario, you think that I am like your elders. You may think that I believe the fairy tales around 9/11, that I ever watch tv, or that I can not possibly be installing cloud-busters next to cellphone towers - all because of the little information I gave you. What am I to think of your other conclusions? You are clearly not the most reliable interpreter of information.